We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

In a rather unusual case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) did not retaliate against an employee when it suspended him for two days after he hit his supervisor with a postal vehicle.

Javier Cabral, a letter carrier for the Postal Service, filed three different Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) complaints and several union grievances alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Cabral ultimately sued the Postal Service, alleging hostile work environment, harassment, retaliation and discrimination based on his race, national origin and age. Cabral is Mexican-American and over the age of 40.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed all of Cabral’s claims with the exception of one: that the Postal Service retaliated against him for making complaints by placing him on a two-day unpaid suspension. The suspension was issued after Cabral stuck his supervisor with a postal vehicle and was unable to show a valid driver’s license. Once Cabral produced the valid driver’s license, Cabral was permitted to return to work and was reimbursed for any lost pay.

The Postal Service moved the district court for reconsideration and the district court granted the motion, dismissing the final retaliation claim. Cabral appealed and the Firth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

As the Fifth Circuit noted, to state a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff must show that “(1) he engaged in conduct protected by Title VII; (2) he suffered a materially adverse action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Here, the Court of Appeals found that the two-day suspension did not amount to a “materially adverse action” because Cabral was unable to show his suspension exacted a physical, emotional or economic toll. Instead, Cabral offered only conclusory statements and no other evidence. As a result, Cabral’s final claim was dismissed.

Compare jurisdictions:Employment: USA

In common with many in-house lawyers, I have limited access to (and a limited budget for) resources and rely on receiving know-how from friends and contacts in private practice. Lexology is great as it provides a daily email with the headlines in all the areas of law that I am interested in (which are all relevant to me, as I was able to choose which areas I was interested in at registration), with links to articles from a wide variety of sources.

I tend to scroll through the daily email when I am having my lunch, reading the headlines and descriptions of the articles, and click on any items that are of interest to me - that way, I feel like I am kept 'in the loop' with legal developments.

In addition to the daily email, I find the articles themselves very helpful - they set out the legal principle but most importantly, they 'boil it down' to the practical implications. When I am doing legal research, I also find the archive search function very helpful.

I have recommended the service to quite a few friends who have also found it very helpful."